The High Court has reiterated that cross-examination will not generally be permitted on an interlocutory application, or where there is no conflict of fact on the affidavits.

In McCarthy v Murphy,^[1] the defendant mortgagor was not permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff (a receiver) or a bank employee who swore a supporting affidavit.

Background

As well as representing new possibilities in the context of acquisitions, the new merger regime under the Companies Act 2014 (the Act) offers a number of benefits which make it attractive to corporates seeking to restructure.

The Act provides for the following three forms of statutory merger between private companies:

On 25 July 2016, Insurance Ireland published a statement opposing the Department of Finance's recent recommendation that liabilities of any insolvent motor insurer should be assumed by the Insurance Compensation Fund. Insurance Ireland states this would and pose a systemic risk to the Irish motor insurance market.

In McAteer & anor v McBrien & ors [2016] IEHC 229, the High Court made an order restricting three directors pursuant to Section 150 of the Companies Act 1990 (now Section 819 of the Companies Act 2014).  The first named respondent (A) was the husband of the second named respondent (B) and father of the third named respondent (C) and all were directors of the Company on the date of the liquidation.

Background

Letters of demand frequently request a party to comply with certain obligations by “close of business”. However, due to the uncertainty surrounding what this phrase means, the Supreme Court was recently asked to determine what time is close of business. 

Background

A mortgage deed provided that money owed by the borrower to the bank was repayable on demand and that if a demand was not satisfied, the bank could enforce its security by appointing a receiver. 

A termination notice served on a tenant is invalid if it does not specifically state that the landlord intends to enter into a binding agreement to sell the property within three months of the termination of the lease, the High Court held on 5 April 2016.

Details of the Case

A recent Supreme Court decision looked at the effect of non-registration of the change of ownership of a charge on its enforcement.  

Infrastructure & Economic Development
This briefing sets out some of the key points of the 2016 Programme for
Government, which includes a wide range of policy proposals in areas
such as infrastructure and economic development, public administration,
constitutional change, financial services, taxation and employment law and
industrial relations.
It is expected that the Government’s Legislation Programme will be
published soon, setting out the legislation that the new Government will
promote in order to give effect to the Programme for Government.

The High Court recently considered Protective Certificates (PC) in the context of Personal Insolvency Arrangements (PIA) in the recent case of Clones Credit Union –v- McManus. A Protective Certificate can be obtained by debtors to prevent enforcement action threatened by creditors. The PC allows such protection for a period of 70 days to facilitate an informal arrangement with creditors.

In Leahy v Doyle & anor [2016] IEHC 177, the High Court issued orders of restriction in respect of directors of two companies (Gingersnap and Scappa), under Section 150 of the Companies Act 1990 (now Section 819 of the Companies Act 2014). While the companies were different, the liquidator and the directors were the same.

Background